bioRxivNeurosciencePreprint
Iterative convergent computation may not be a useful inductive bias for residual neural networks
Abstract
Recent work has suggested that feedforward residual neural networks (ResNets) approximate iterative recurrent computations. Iterative computations are useful in many domains, so they might provide good solutions for neural networks to learn. Here we quantify the degree to which ResNets learn iterative solutions and introduce a regularization approach that encourages learning of iterative solutions. Iterative methods are characterized by two properties: iteration and convergence. To quantify these properties, we define three indices of iterative convergence. Consistent with previous work, we show that, even though ResNets can express iterative solutions, they do not learn them when trained conventionally on computer vision tasks. We then introduce regularizations to encourage iterative convergent computation and test whether this provides a useful inductive bias. To make the networks more iterative, we manipulate the degree of weight sharing across layers using soft gradient coupling. This new method provides a form of recurrence regularization and can interpolate smoothly between an ordinary ResNet and a "recurrent" ResNet (i.e., one that uses identical weights across layers and thus could be physically implemented with a recurrent network computing the successive stages iteratively across time). To make the networks more convergent we impose a Lipschitz constraint on the residual functions using spectral normalization. The three indices of iterative convergence reveal that the gradient coupling and the Lipschitz constraint succeed at making the networks iterative and convergent, respectively. However, neither recurrence regularization nor spectral normalization improve classification accuracy on standard visual recognition tasks (MNIST, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100) or on challenging recognition tasks with partial occlusions (Digitclutter). Iterative convergent computation, in these tasks, does not provide a useful inductive bias for ResNets.
- Citations
- 0
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Generative and discriminative recurrence employ opposing strategies for robust vision
Lea‐Maria Schmitt, Maartje Koot, … Floris P. de Lange·bioRxiv·Jul 7, 2026
- Bio-inspired neural networks implement different recurrent visual processing strategies than task-trained ones do
Grace W. Lindsay, Thomas D. Mrsic‐Flogel, Maneesh Sahani·bioRxiv·Mar 7, 2022
- Do training with blurred images make convolutional neural networks closer to humans concerning object recognition performance and internal representations?
Sou Yoshihara, Taiki Fukiage, Shin’ya Nishida·bioRxiv·Jun 13, 2022
- A critical test of deep convolutional neural networks ability to capture recurrent processing in the brain using visual masking
Jessica Loke, Noor Seijdel, … H. Steven Scholte·Journal of Cognitive NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2022
- Recurrent convolutional neural networks: a better model of biological object recognition
Courtney J. Spoerer, Patrick McClure, Nikolaus Kriegeskorte·Frontiers in PsychologyPeer-reviewed·Sep 12, 2017
- Modelling the role of contour integration in visual inference
Salman Khan, Alexander M. Wong, Bryan Tripp·bioRxiv·Oct 28, 2022